Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

    We've gotten off track in other threads, so I took the liberty of creating a new one with all your opinions on what our lineups should look like barring no more trades. (You guys are allowed to talk trades and the possible booting of Tinsley.)

    Feel free to explain why you think your lineup is the ideal one for the upcoming season. You can quote or link your lineups from other threads if you like. Oh, and please no arguing!

    Thanks!

    Ford>Jack>Diener>>>>>>>Tinsley
    Dunleavy>B. Rush>K.Rush>Daniels
    Granger>Williams
    Murphy>McRoberts
    Foster>Hibbert>Nesterovic

    I don't really see Shawne staying around much longer, but if not, I see him coming off the bench for Danny. He really has a lot more to prove with the team barring some off-court incident waiting to happen.

    As much as I like Kareem and Marquis, I suspect they will be gone one way or the other. Jeff Foster's days are numbered but again, he is our leading rebounder and can be a driving force if needed.

    Troy Murphy is capable of playing power forward, he isn't fast, but fast enough. He can drive through the lane with little or no effort what so ever. He is also great with coming up with a deep jump shot if absolutely necessary.
    Last edited by duke dynamite; 06-29-2008, 03:59 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

    Yeh that's the same lineup Im thinking about.

    I just find it a real pitty Diener is going to get nearly, next to no game time thanks to aquireing Jarrett Jack. after he performed IMO so well in the last 20+ games.

    When he found his stroke he was great. Also his assist/TO ratio was awesome.

    AUSTRALIA'S NO.1 PACER FAN

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

      Originally posted by granger33 View Post
      Yeh that's the same lineup Im thinking about.

      I just find it a real pitty Diener is going to get nearly, next to no game time thanks to aquireing Jarrett Jack. after he performed IMO so well in the last 20+ games.

      When he found his stroke he was great. Also his assist/TO ratio was awesome.
      Yeah, it will be Orlando all over again for Travee.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

        i think you're undervaluing rasho quite a bit. in fact, i wouldn't be surprised if opening night our lineup was

        ford / dunleavy / granger / foster / rasho

        at least if we still have both guys. then you play murphy with hibbert off the bench -- seems to make more sense in the o'brien offense.
        Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 06-29-2008, 08:19 AM.
        This is the darkest timeline.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

          I think you're undervaluing Murphy, ATC. I don't see how Jimmy doesn't start him.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

            Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
            I think you're undervaluing Murphy, ATC. I don't see how Jimmy doesn't start him.
            it isn't undervaluing per se. i just think the rasho & foster, murphy & hibbert combo might work better - mainly for defensive and rebounding reasons.

            ford / dunleavy / granger / foster / rasho
            jack / b. rush / baston / murphy / hibbert

            once again, this assumes that all four are still on the team in november.
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

              Could Diener see some time on the court as a Second PG? There are some up tempo teams playing 2 point guards.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

                yeah, you could see a little of that. jack and steve blake did a lot of that last season, with jack at the 2.
                This is the darkest timeline.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

                  Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                  it isn't undervaluing per se. i just think the rasho & foster, murphy & hibbert combo might work better - mainly for defensive and rebounding reasons.

                  ford / dunleavy / granger / foster / rasho
                  jack / b. rush / baston / murphy / hibbert

                  once again, this assumes that all four are still on the team in november.

                  I'd rather see Graham substituted for Baston at SF. I feel posters are undervaluing Graham! But if Williams and Quis aren't traded I can see JOB not giving him anymore PT than last year.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

                    I'd rather have baston taking up the backup pf spot than mcroberts
                    Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

                      What I'd like to see, but it's probably way too soon:

                      Ford
                      B.Rush
                      Granger
                      Murphy
                      Hibbert

                      What it will probably be at first:

                      Ford
                      Dunleavy
                      Granger
                      Murphy
                      Nesterovic (or Foster)

                      If here, prominent backups:

                      Jack, Dunleavy, Williams, Foster, Nesterovic

                      or in the second instance

                      Jack, B.Rush, Williams, Foster or Nesterovic, Hibbert

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

                        I think people are tending to forget that rookies really shouldn't be expected to start their first year unless they are like one of the top 3 or 4 picks in the draft.

                        I see it as:

                        Ford
                        Dunleavy
                        Granger
                        Murphy
                        Foster

                        6 Jarrett Jack
                        7 Rasho Nesterovic
                        8 Shawne Williams
                        9 Brandon Rush
                        10 Roy Hibbert
                        11 Travis Deiner
                        12 Marquis Daniels

                        At least that's what I'm hoping. Yes, I have Quis as the 12th man, but our roster is really jam packed and I am sure if Shawne is playing poorly Quis will get his time.

                        And that doesn't even account for Baston or Stephen Graham, I guess they will be looking good in suits. Even though I am a Baston fan and I wouldn't mind having him on the active roster.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

                          Yeah, on opening day... I would probably not expect to see the rookies starting. Though I woulden't be terribly surprised if they start Hibbert.

                          Ford/Jack
                          Dunleavy/Rush
                          Granger/Rush
                          Foster/Murphy
                          Nesterovic/Hibbert

                          That will probably be the sort of 9 man rotation Obrien likes.

                          I think the eventual intended starting lineup will be this...

                          Ford/Jack
                          Rush/Dunleavy
                          Granger/Dunleavy
                          Murphy/Foster
                          Hibbert/Nesterovic (later to be replaced by stanko )

                          I honestly think the frontcourt for next season is, while unspectacular, pretty solid.

                          I personally hope we keep shawne williams and fit him into this puzzle somehow though. I would love to see him playing murphy's role at the 4 spot. I think his body could handle it if he bulked up a little. If he puts on 20 pounds he could be like a three point shooting Antonio Mcdyess.

                          If shawne realized his potential he could be the missing piece at the 4 spot.
                          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                          - ilive4sports

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            What I'd like to see, but it's probably way too soon:

                            Ford
                            B.Rush
                            Granger
                            Murphy
                            Hibbert

                            What it will probably be at first:

                            Ford
                            Dunleavy
                            Granger
                            Murphy
                            Nesterovic (or Foster)

                            If here, prominent backups:

                            Jack, Dunleavy, Williams, Foster, Nesterovic

                            or in the second instance

                            Jack, B.Rush, Williams, Foster or Nesterovic, Hibbert
                            As the roster stands now, that's exactly how I see it.

                            I would highly prefer the first lineup you posted, or perhaps with Nesterovic/Jack in the lineup. I think we sorely need defense in the starting lineup. Ford obviously provides better penetration and would be more effective with Murphy than Jack. Rush in the starting lineup makes the perimeter defense better while providing a big burst of scoring off the bench from Dunleavy. Nesterovic will get better rebounding numbers than Hibbert, which will be sorely needed. Having Jack in the starting lineup provides better backcourt defense and slightly better 3 point shooting (Ford slightly worse than Tinsley, Jack slightly better than Tinsley), though penetration isn't as great. I think Ford would be really good with Dunleavy and Foster off the bench, but he's better utilized when paired with shooters. Plus, Jack will be better utilized as a shooter, with Dunleavy, off the bench with Hibbert's ability to pass out of the post. Dunleavy, Foster, and Hibbert probably give us the best fundamental bench in the league. However, Hibbert is great at passing low and high, so he'll find good cutters like Rush/Ford high and good shooters from low.

                            The lineup that we'll most likely have will be interesting. The positives include having a penetrating passer with the ability to kick it to three shooters in Dunleavy, Granger, and Murphy. He's a better penetrator than Tinsley (actually, Tinsley and Ford's career numbers are eerily similar in mpg & apg, with Ford having a slightly higher PPG most likely due to his slighly higer FG%). Nesterovic will get Foster-like numbers, but less rebounds and more blocks. And since we're built as an outside-in team, this will most likely give us our best offensive lineup.

                            However, I think it's more valuable to have much better defense against other teams' starting offenses at the cost of not having our best offensive weapons in the starting lineup. I think it provides us with a lot more balance, and we won't have to rely on shooting our way back into the game.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Projected Lineups (As of 06.29.08)

                              if you truly believe mcroberts is in our rotation this year, then we are a lock for the worst record in the league.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X